- Status
[citation][nom]cewhidx[/nom]Nahh 1 core for gaming & 7 for social networking and DRM.[/citation]
More like 4 cores for gaming, and the other 4 cores go unused while developers figure how to quickly build heavily-multithreaded games with the corporate management breathing down their neck, or some of them continue to do half-crap job.
More like 4 cores for gaming, and the other 4 cores go unused while developers figure how to quickly build heavily-multithreaded games with the corporate management breathing down their neck, or some of them continue to do half-crap job.
[citation][nom]bluestar2k11[/nom]Look at point 4 and 6 under the CPU segment, that screams HT hun.4 CPU cores, 2 execution threads per core, that means 8 effective cores doesn't it? Doesn't HT desktop CPU's list 8 cores if it's a quad core chip?[/citation]
Sigh, just because the word 'thread' is in the description doesn't mean hyper-threading will be in the CPU.
A thread is simply an instruction set that can be run independently of another instruction, it has absolutely nothing to do with hyper-threading!
Hyper-threading is intel's proprietary method of making 1 core into 2 logical (virtual) cores in a way of more efficiently handling a work load.
Neither AMD, nor IBM have the rights to use hyper-threading (proprietary technology, owned by intel), so the likelihood of it showing up in the 720's processor is zero considering intel has absolutely nothing to do with the 720's development.
If they say there are 8 cores, its 8 physical cores, unless they plan on a legal battle with intel...
Sigh, just because the word 'thread' is in the description doesn't mean hyper-threading will be in the CPU.
A thread is simply an instruction set that can be run independently of another instruction, it has absolutely nothing to do with hyper-threading!
Hyper-threading is intel's proprietary method of making 1 core into 2 logical (virtual) cores in a way of more efficiently handling a work load.
Neither AMD, nor IBM have the rights to use hyper-threading (proprietary technology, owned by intel), so the likelihood of it showing up in the 720's processor is zero considering intel has absolutely nothing to do with the 720's development.
If they say there are 8 cores, its 8 physical cores, unless they plan on a legal battle with intel...
[citation][nom]timw03878[/nom]Does it come with red rings of death, over heating issues, and all around cheap quality?Hopefully the sheep won't buy 2 or 3 of em when they break, but I doubt they'll be that smart.[/citation] It's okay, the power chord bricks/wired mics they came with made things better
SteelCity1981
Distinguished
- Sep 16, 2010
- 1,129
- 0
- 19,310
8 core amd cpu with no L3 cache wonder what the bottlenecks will be under heavily threaded programing esp in games where L3 takes advantage of L3 cache.
[citation][nom]invlem[/nom]Sigh, just because the word 'thread' is in the description doesn't mean hyper-threading will be in the CPU.A thread is simply an instruction set that can be run independently of another instruction, it has absolutely nothing to do with hyper-threading!Hyper-threading is intel's proprietary method of making 1 core into 2 logical (virtual) cores in a way of more efficiently handling a work load.Neither AMD, nor IBM have the rights to use hyper-threading (proprietary technology, owned by intel), so the likelihood of it showing up in the 720's processor is zero considering intel has absolutely nothing to do with the 720's development.If they say there are 8 cores, its 8 physical cores, unless they plan on a legal battle with intel...[/citation]
Hyperthreading is simply Intel's implementation of Simultaneous MultiThreading, AKA SMT. IBM has their own implementation of SMT which is used in many PowerPC based systems including the XBox 360, PS3, and their entire enterprise lineup.
Hyperthreading is simply Intel's implementation of Simultaneous MultiThreading, AKA SMT. IBM has their own implementation of SMT which is used in many PowerPC based systems including the XBox 360, PS3, and their entire enterprise lineup.
ojas
Distinguished
- Feb 25, 2011
- 2,924
- 0
- 20,810
This is piledriver/steamroller most probably, but the CPU info is confusing: it seems to suggest HT + 8 cores + modules, still amounting to 8.
My guess is that it's a custom Piledriver/steamroller, but something tells me we're missing something here.
My guess is that it's a custom Piledriver/steamroller, but something tells me we're missing something here.
To me its looks like 2x 4core pack so it has 8core x "HT" = 16 threads.
Also its without L3 because it has 68Gb/s memory bandwindth to start with. For comparison I7-3770K with DDR3-1600 has about 21GB/s bandwidth.
For all we know this might a developer machine for 1st gen games and the actual xbox has muchos better hardware.. 😉
Also its without L3 because it has 68Gb/s memory bandwindth to start with. For comparison I7-3770K with DDR3-1600 has about 21GB/s bandwidth.
For all we know this might a developer machine for 1st gen games and the actual xbox has muchos better hardware.. 😉
[citation][nom]catbus1[/nom]Yeah consoles are going to jump from 512mb ram to 8 gigs in a single generation.....GOD DAMN IT INTERNET, QUIT BEING RETARDED.That includes you Tom's......[/citation]
Back in 2005 512MB was kinda OK in 2013 ram is pretty cheap and these consoles will be out for 5-7 years.
Back in 2005 512MB was kinda OK in 2013 ram is pretty cheap and these consoles will be out for 5-7 years.
funny to have to pay sony for Blu-ray license.
Thought microsuck said the future is "streaming" 1080P.
Thought microsuck said the future is "streaming" 1080P.
8Gb RAM for consoles?
No offense, but 16GB would have been better and more suitable for today's 'standards'- especially seeing how RAM is relatively cheap - add to that low latency and high speed RAM, and that can easily speed up APU gaming performance (especially if this hardware will have an IGP and dedicated GPU working together to increase performance).
However... I was under the impression that AMD's 8 core chips aren't actual 8 physical cores... but rather 4 physical cores with something akin to 4 virtual cores (or basically 4 modules that contain different instructions).
The same thing would apply to AMD APU's (desktop/mobile). The 'quad core cpu's' aren't really 4 physical cores, but 2 modules that operate differently.
This would explain why their performance is lacking compared to Intel because its basically having an AMD APU A10 which is realistically a 2 core chip, vs and i7 3630qm that's a quad core chip.
If AMD actually had 4 modules at A10 performance level going up against the i7-3630qm, then they would likely be FAR closer to each other performance-wise in multi-threaded tasks (then again AMD is using a different architecture that doesn't focus on IPC that much, and needs specifically written software to take advantage of it, in which case, its comparable/better than Intel).
So at the very least, it seems the consoles will be getting a boost that should help push things forward (for a market based economy that is - even though they could have done orders of magnitude better across the board).
No offense, but 16GB would have been better and more suitable for today's 'standards'- especially seeing how RAM is relatively cheap - add to that low latency and high speed RAM, and that can easily speed up APU gaming performance (especially if this hardware will have an IGP and dedicated GPU working together to increase performance).
However... I was under the impression that AMD's 8 core chips aren't actual 8 physical cores... but rather 4 physical cores with something akin to 4 virtual cores (or basically 4 modules that contain different instructions).
The same thing would apply to AMD APU's (desktop/mobile). The 'quad core cpu's' aren't really 4 physical cores, but 2 modules that operate differently.
This would explain why their performance is lacking compared to Intel because its basically having an AMD APU A10 which is realistically a 2 core chip, vs and i7 3630qm that's a quad core chip.
If AMD actually had 4 modules at A10 performance level going up against the i7-3630qm, then they would likely be FAR closer to each other performance-wise in multi-threaded tasks (then again AMD is using a different architecture that doesn't focus on IPC that much, and needs specifically written software to take advantage of it, in which case, its comparable/better than Intel).
So at the very least, it seems the consoles will be getting a boost that should help push things forward (for a market based economy that is - even though they could have done orders of magnitude better across the board).
daglesj
Distinguished
- Jul 14, 2007
- 485
- 21
- 18,785
Folks keep forgetting that specs listed for a console that look limited in comparison with a PCs architecture are not quite so relevant.
Remember those parts may look lesser powered but they are usually custom tweaked parts that are more directly linked to each other. They don't have to run at the same speeds as PCs because they are not hamstrung with legacy hardware setups and the code is highly optimised.
The trouble with PC software for gaming is that its not very optimised, it has to play on a huge range of gear that leads to compromises.
Take that away and all the other junk and console doesn't need and you are flying.
Doing direct comparisons to off the shelf PC kit doesn't really work.
Remember those parts may look lesser powered but they are usually custom tweaked parts that are more directly linked to each other. They don't have to run at the same speeds as PCs because they are not hamstrung with legacy hardware setups and the code is highly optimised.
The trouble with PC software for gaming is that its not very optimised, it has to play on a huge range of gear that leads to compromises.
Take that away and all the other junk and console doesn't need and you are flying.
Doing direct comparisons to off the shelf PC kit doesn't really work.
8gb of ram seems a bit unbelievable, a console can run on much less since it doesnt have an entire desktop OS, doesnt have antivirus, wont multitask etc. 6gb is the sweet spot for desktop gaming so 4gb should be ideal for a console
bluestar2k11
Distinguished
- Feb 1, 2011
- 145
- 0
- 18,680
Daglesj, even if that's true, that doesn't completely explain 1.6Ghz.
We passed that 13 years ago. This seems like a step backwards to me for a gaming platform even IF it's more optimized. Not to mention the current generation all use CPU's at 3Ghz+, and every desktop as well.
How would going backwards be helpful without that core architecture being the best ever invented. (And for the next 10 years) Something which i highly doubt was done for a console. Plus it doesn't have any L3 cache, aren't there several instruction sets used in AMD and intels chips that highly benefit from L3 and speed up performance?
Even if they did it to keep heat down, which is unlikely, modern CPU's don't put out half as much heat as they used to, it's the GPU you have to worry about, and consoles use active cooling after all, this isn't a tablet or phone with no room.
And if any of those cores are dedicated to other functions like kinect, it's going to reduce the power of the chip even further, regardless of how optimized consoles are compared to PC's, esp when you add on top that developers likely won't be able to code the games very well for a few years until they master multi-threading and get comfortable with the new hardware, lets not get into trying to make a 1.6ghz system perform like a 3+ghz one.
And I have this feeling at least 1 core will be dedicated to some function we'd rather not have in the system reducing the overall power and effectiveness.
We passed that 13 years ago. This seems like a step backwards to me for a gaming platform even IF it's more optimized. Not to mention the current generation all use CPU's at 3Ghz+, and every desktop as well.
How would going backwards be helpful without that core architecture being the best ever invented. (And for the next 10 years) Something which i highly doubt was done for a console. Plus it doesn't have any L3 cache, aren't there several instruction sets used in AMD and intels chips that highly benefit from L3 and speed up performance?
Even if they did it to keep heat down, which is unlikely, modern CPU's don't put out half as much heat as they used to, it's the GPU you have to worry about, and consoles use active cooling after all, this isn't a tablet or phone with no room.
And if any of those cores are dedicated to other functions like kinect, it's going to reduce the power of the chip even further, regardless of how optimized consoles are compared to PC's, esp when you add on top that developers likely won't be able to code the games very well for a few years until they master multi-threading and get comfortable with the new hardware, lets not get into trying to make a 1.6ghz system perform like a 3+ghz one.
And I have this feeling at least 1 core will be dedicated to some function we'd rather not have in the system reducing the overall power and effectiveness.
1.6GHz 8 cores.... lol most likely AMD jaguar cores. 8 cores are great, but @ 1.6GHz it is not so great anymore.(there is noway these chips has enough IPC to make up the low clock speed) It seems to me that all next generation consoles are going to be having weak CPUs. it also means next gen consoles port games are going to be heavy tax on GPUs. Low CPU = weak AI = when we gonna have games that have very decent AI?
2500K/2600K is already pretty overkill now for gaming. Looks like it gonna last a while b4 obsolete in gaming
2500K/2600K is already pretty overkill now for gaming. Looks like it gonna last a while b4 obsolete in gaming
eklipz330
Distinguished
- Jul 7, 2008
- 3,034
- 19
- 20,795
i recall microsoft stating that the xbox design will be so that porting games over to PC will be much easier... if thats the case, i'm so ready.
lets just hope i dont get screwed over because i finally got a quad core. i hope a 3570k at 4.2 can hold its own for the next several years.
lets just hope i dont get screwed over because i finally got a quad core. i hope a 3570k at 4.2 can hold its own for the next several years.
eklipz330
Distinguished
- Jul 7, 2008
- 3,034
- 19
- 20,795
[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]1.6GHz 8 cores.... lol most likely AMD jaguar cores. 8 cores are great, but @ 1.6GHz it is not so great anymore.(there is noway these chips has enough IPC to make up the low clock speed) It seems to me that all next generation consoles are going to be having weak CPUs. it also means next gen consoles port games are going to be heavy tax on GPUs. Low CPU = weak AI = when we gonna have games that have very decent AI?2500K/2600K is already pretty overkill now for gaming. Looks like it gonna last a while b4 obsolete in gaming[/citation]you forget clock speed doesnt matter? its not 2001 anymore.
traumadisaster
Distinguished
- Apr 1, 2011
- 110
- 0
- 18,690
Seems like the 32mb of esram will be triple the 10mb the 360 had and be what really makes it produce. A common theme I heard developers mention this Gen was that 10mb esram was crucial to making nice gfx.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram